Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
So, you agree that genuine Christianity could, in the first century, have been propagated and expanded into areas outside of the Roman Empire, by believers who were not under the direct earthly authority of the “SEE” ??
Seems to me most of us consider the calendar pretty reliable at this point.
. . . at least that there
HAS BEEN
many centuries since Pentecost.
dBTW, I found out about the chicken story.
Ya know what brings me up short? That there are people that will spend eternity in hell... I hate that thought
My concern about purgatory is it makes the cross of no effect, men have to pay for their own sins..
Not the one with me and the tic-tac-toe chicken, I pray????
Jesus was speaking against all the religious tradition of the time. Can you point me to one tradition that Jesus taught??
Many here do not seem to grasp that fact that when they make an outrageous claim, it then becomes THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to prove it.
Thanks for that remark, Mr. Rogers. As for me, I'd cast a wider net.
Doctrinally, I’m closer to you
I disagree.
I didn’t know much doctrine, but I knew I wanted to be with Jesus.
And that awareness is in itself a gift from God because you are as fallen and corrupted by a sin nature as I am and the guy next door who doesn't "want to be with Jesus."
God's Grace saves, from beginning to end, not our own prescience.
I have very strong disagreements with the Catholic Church. I am as appalled by Purgatory
But that's an easy one. Even Rome has started to hedge their bets on that one. Election is the core of salvation. God chooses, not men, as Scripture tells us over and over. Men think they have the final say, but even their ability to say "yes" comes first from God. And obviously not all men have that ability, for who would deny the truth of the Triune God if they had been given a new heart and new eyes and new ears and a renewed mind to truly know the things of God? The natural man does not know the things of God because they have not been revealed to him through God's word. The letters on the page are just ink, and not "spirit and life."
There really are only two religions -- synergism (I activated and authenticated my own salvation by my free will decision to believe) and monergism (God is the author and finisher of my faith, having ordained the end from the beginning.)
I choose carefully this day. And that ability to chose carefully comes from God alone and not our "free will" which has been forever corrupted by Adam's fall.
And I believe many of your posts are insulting (Romanist? How often have you been told that terminology is offensive?), intellectually dishonest (pictures taken from websites that are not accurate, and a reluctance on your part to admit the error after it is pointed out), arrogant (’special grace’ to ‘special’ people, I guess), and with a perspective that seems to me to define itself as ‘Not Catholic’ rather than ‘Protestant’.
1) If the truth "insults," so be it.
2) "Pictures that are not accurate?" No "picture" I've posted has been photo-shopped or is inauthentic. The pictures are what they are -- witness to RCC error. According to you, you can't see it, and call that witness "insulting." Your prerogative.
3) "Special grace?" You mean "saving grace" apart from the grace God gives all through welcome rain and sunshine and pansies? Yes, I believe God's perfect, purposeful saving grace saves completely, as ordained by Him from the foundation of the world. All who believe are saved. And all who believe do so because it is God's will that they believe.
4) "'Not Catholic' is not 'Protestant.'" Protestant is the faith of the Reformation, now perverted by Romanist influence to tell Protestants and Roman Catholics alike that they hold the key to their own salvation and that the deal is only complete when men's good sense and prudence permits them to choose well. And again, as Jesus tells us in John 15, "You have not chosen me; I have chosen you." You and Rome disagree with Christ's teaching. Protestants of the Reformation then and now understand differently, by the grace of God alone.
Now, as to the difference between Pink and Robertson...
PINK: ”As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” Here we learn four things: First, that believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree. Second, that a limited number only are “ordained to eternal life,” for if all men without exception were thus ordained by God, then the words “as many as” are a meaningless qualification. Third, that this “ordination” of God is not to mere external privileges but to “eternal life,” not to service but to salvation itself. Fourth, that all-”as many as,” not one less-who are thus ordained by God to eternal life will most certainly believe.”
Amen. Let's contrast that with Robertson who most certainly does not understand and "believe in predestination," as you assert. That's an old papist trick - keep the bottle, change the wine. Thanks, but I prefer the new wine in a new bottle.
ROBERTSON: “As many as were ordained to eternal life...
lol. First of all, he doesn't even finish the sentence. What's he worried about? That someone might really understand the sentence?
ROBERTSON: “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better.
lol. Yeah. "Better" for the Arminian. "Ordained" really throws that old monkey wrench into the "me-ism" of the Arminian.
ROBERTSON: "...This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency."
It most certainly does "solve the vexed problem," as much as humanly possible to understand. "Divine sovereignty" first determines ("ordains") who believes, determines men's lives and sets men's boundaries and names men's children and gives men new eyes and new ears and a heart of flesh and a renewed mind in order that they believe. That's pretty darn simple. Read Ephesians 2. Faith is not of ourselves. It is a gift from God alone by His grace alone.
Here's a "better" understanding from Calvin's Commentary...
Therefore, let us hold and mark that which Luke saith, that those were ordained before unto life, who, being in-grafted into the body of Christ by faith, do receive the earnest and pledge of their adoption in Christ. Whence we do also gather what force the preaching of the gospel hath of itself. For it (preaching the Gospel) doth not find faith in men, save only because God doth call those inwardly whom he hath chosen, and because he draweth those who were his own before unto Christ, (John 6:37.) Also Luke teacheth in the same words, that it cannot be that any of the elect should perish. For he saith not that one or a few of the elect did believe, but so many as were elect. For though God’s election be unknown to us until we perceive it by faith, yet is it not doubtful or in suspense in his secret counsel; because he commendeth all those whom he counteth his to the safeguard and tuition of his Son, who will continue a faithful keeper even unto the end. Both members are necessary to be known. When election is placed above faith, there is no cause why men should challenge to themselves any thing in any part of their salvation. For if faith, wherein consisteth salvation, which is unto us a witness of the free adoption of God, which coupleth us to Christ, and maketh his life ours, whereby we possess God with his righteousness, and, finally, whereby we receive the grace of sanctification, be grounded without us in the eternal counsel of God; what good things so ever we have, we must needs acknowledge that we have received it of the grace of God, which doth prevent us of its own accord. Again, because many entangle themselves in doubtful and thorny imaginations, whilst that they seek for their salvation in the hidden counsel of God, let us learn that the election of God is therefore approved by faith, that our minds may be turned unto Christ as unto the pledge of election, and that they may seek no other certainty save that which is revealed to us in the gospel; I say, let this seal suffice us, that “whosoever believeth in the only-begotten Son of God hath eternal life,” (John 3:36.)And they believed. -- This is an exposition of the member next going before, at least in my judgment.: For Luke showeth what manner [of] glory they gave to the word of God. And here we must note the restraint, [reservation,] when he saith that they believed, (but) not all in general, but those who were ordained unto life. And we need not doubt but that Luke calleth those τεταγμενους, who were chosen by the free adoption of God. For it is a ridiculous cavil to refer this unto the affection of those which believed, as if those received the gospel whose minds were well-disposed. For this ordaining must be understood of the eternal counsel of God alone. Neither doth Luke say that they were ordained unto faith, but unto life; because the Lord doth predestinate his unto the inheritance of eternal life. And this place teacheth that faith dependeth upon God’s election. And assuredly, seeing that the whole race of mankind is blind and stubborn, those diseases stick fast in our nature until they be redressed by the grace of the Spirit, and that redressing floweth from the fountain of election alone. For in that of two which hear the same doctrine together, the one showeth himself apt to be taught, the other continueth in his obstinacy. It is not, therefore, because they differ by nature, but because God doth lighten [illumine] the former, and doth not vouchsafe the other the like grace. We are, indeed, made the children of God by faith; as faith, as touching us, is the gate and the first beginning of salvation; but there is a higher respect of God. For he doth not begin to choose us after that we believe; but he sealeth his adoption, which was hidden in our hearts, by the gift of faith, that it may be manifest and sure. For if this be proper to the children of God alone to be his disciples, it followeth that it doth not appertain unto all the children of Adam in general. No marvel, therefore, if all do not receive the gospel; because, though our heavenly Father inviteth all men unto the faith by the external voice of man, yet doth he not call effectually by his Spirit any save those whom he hath determined to save. Now, if God’s election, whereby he ordaineth us unto life, be the cause of faith and salvation, there remaineth nothing for worthiness or merits.
I have to thank you for posting Robertson to me which happily led me to posting and re-reading Calvin's beautiful two paragraphs concerning election. As God wills.
And thanks ever so much for the link to "Classical Arminianism." I'll file it with the RCC catechism and Ratzinger's "global encyclical."
MR. ROGERS: "And I would remind you that salvation has more than one meaning. It can mean justification, it can mean sanctification, or it can mean both."
Wow. That's so sad I'm going to post it again...bigger, and be sure I attribute it to the proper author...
MR. ROGERS: "And I would remind you that salvation has more than one meaning. It can mean justification, it can mean sanctification, or it can mean both."
Salvation has only one meaning...that men are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for the glory of God alone, all made knowable to us through the authority of God's word alone.
“For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” - Romans 10
Yes, indeedy. And does God give a heart of flesh to all men, or only to those who are His?
Well. this about wraps it up for me. You've said you're retired so maybe that explains the long posts. I'm not. But I've certainly enjoyed this exercise, futile as it may well be.
Em, that would be the one. ;-D
ping to 4889.
How in the wide, wide world of sports did you catch wind of that???? And why do you even talk to me after hearing it???
Counsel.
Well, yes I suppose to the degree of every other mother. But LowOil raises an issue I have heard before too. Apparently, way back they were trying to figure out how Mary could be ever virgin, since the very act of giving birth would break the definition of virginity. In Mary's case the hymen would have to be broken at this point, along with the womb being opened. So, they came up with a doctrine that Mary gave birth painlessly and without blood. From Perpetual virginity of Mary:
That last footnote, [8], refers to here in the CCC. Interestingly, IMO the Bible is crystal clear that this doctrine is wrong and you are right! :) Check this out:
And the reference is to:
This seems to confirm that there was blood. I always thought it was odd that the immediate consequence of Mary giving birth to Jesus was that she was instantly ceremonially unclean. Thanks a lot! :) Perhaps that whole thing (including menstruation) was just to be consistent with the treatment concerning blood of any kind.
Now, the language is, I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. How does He do so? By the Spirit He breathed into me to resurrect the dead, spirit-less me. It is now HIS spirit, not mine at all. As I share in that spirit, I share in His Sonship. As I share in His Sonship, I share in His work - yet not I, but Christ who lives in me. Sharing in His work means to share in His redemptive work.
I suppose it is possible to use the concept of "share" in this way, but I'm not sure why we would want to. :) It's more comforting to me to think of it as Christ doing it ALL for me, He gets 100% of the credit (as you also give Him) ALONE (double caps :). To me, if I thought of "sharing" in that I would have thoughts of trying to muscle in on His turf and taking focus away from Christ. That's just how I'm wired. It's hard for me to think of sharing when only one gets all the credit for all the merit. Is what you're saying like a fan "sharing" in the victory of a football team? If that was the case it would be easier for me to understand. By the way I'm put together, I would think of that as sharing in the celebration rather than sharing in the victory.
If I say, I, Mad Dawg, have participated actively in the redemptive work of Christ, I am wrong in an especially deadly way. But I think I can say that Christ does his redeeming work in what was me before it died.
I'm with you here.
Mary's union with Christ is, in this 'scheme' also not in any way earned. It is given. Given at her conception (we would say, but for this that's not so important), at the Annunciation, and from then on, moment by moment it is knitted and it grows stronger. The gift of her motherhood is the gift of a union with Christ NOT different in kind from that of any other saint ("small 's' saint") but different in degree because of the Love which the perfect Son bears for her who bore Him. It is grace in her as it is grace in the saints.
If you are saying that Christ loved Mary more than I loved my own mother, then I would agree. I would also say, though, that Christ loved ME more than I loved my own mother. So I figure you mean more than that. In trying to understand Mary's place in Catholicism one thing I try to do is coordinate three things: Mary --- different --- Jesus' love. I can understand the concept of Jesus loving Mary more in the same way that I loved my mother more than some woman in Philly I've never met. But is it the case here that Christ had a greater spiritual love for Mary than He does for you or me? If so, that one would leave me at the side of the tracks. :)
Wow, another misstatement of Catholic Teaching from RnMomof7. I've lost count how many that makes now.
Everyone in purgatory is already saved. By Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross.
Great post. And Rogers certainly doesn’t speak for this old Baptist. I suspect his Catholic pastor shares his views.
Yes, I had my mind elsewhere, and RIGHT AFTER I hit the post button, not sure if I had spelled your name correctly, I saw that I had used the wrong “counsel.”
And I came *that close* to scorching my fried okra, so didn’t correct it.
Thanks for pointing it out. ;-D
Except that NONE of the intellectually dishonset pictures come from Catholic websites (one is from a site that hates Catholics, one is from a photographer's website and one is from a Jewish psychic's website). There is NOTHING to suggest that any of them are authentic other than a person's desire to believe them.
The pictures are what they are -- witness to RCC error.
Only if they are true, something you have NEVER been able to establish.
You might recall that one of them was posted to bolster a claim that a certain quote could be found on "thousands" of Catholic websites, only later did we discover that the quote was actually a total fabrication.
Unless you took the photo yourself, you're not in a position to claim that. You cannot know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.